This just happened. A clerk came to me today. She had an employee from a dealership presenting deals to be processed. We have to see xerox copies of customer's licenses to compare signatures. (Photos aren't important, but there has been a sharp increase in fraud lately, and we have to compare signatures).

The xerox of the license was so bad that it was near impossible to make out the signature. She also told me that she had a DMV Investigator on the phone (had been inspecting paperwork at the dealer for legal compliance), who was verifying the signature was good. I said, Okay, process, but record the Investigator's name with the paperwork as verifying it.

We just got a call from DMV Investigations about an unrelated issue. On the phone, the clerk said, "Wow, this is my day for talking with Investigators! I was talking with Investigator Richard Johnson earlier."

"Who is Richard Johnson? We have no one by that name."

It turns out that Richard Johnson is the office manager at the dealership, and they are currently under investigation for various infractions, including forging customers' signatures on documents.

So, Mr. Johnson, you are already under investigation, and you chose to lie to a state employee and represent yourself as a state employee with enforcement privileges? That sound you hear is the real Investigation Unit on their way to you right now, to shut you down for good.

If you're going to lie, especially in a way that potentially breaks the law, why would you give your real name?!

It's also possible she was annoyed at something else and hadn't put on a "game face".

Probably the best piece of interview advice I ever got was to check everything you are going to check--shirt in place, hair good, etc.--out of sight of the building you are headed to. Not just in the parking lot but down a block, around the corner, anywhere you can't be seen by anyone from any window, in any location. Once you have done that, then drive into the lot, acting as if you can be seen by everyone from that moment on. Don't fuss with anything, don't look annoyed, don't do anything that is less than how you want to be seen by the interviewer.

It's also possible she was annoyed at something else and hadn't put on a "game face".

Probably the best piece of interview advice I ever got was to check everything you are going to check--shirt in place, hair good, etc.--out of sight of the building you are headed to. Not just in the parking lot but down a block, around the corner, anywhere you can't be seen by anyone from any window, in any location. Once you have done that, then drive into the lot, acting as if you can be seen by everyone from that moment on. Don't fuss with anything, don't look annoyed, don't do anything that is less than how you want to be seen by the interviewer.

Right. The time to put on the "game face" is before you walk in the door. This candidate ignored potential colleagues walking by, plus the receptionist. It's not just enough to be "on" for the interviewer, but you have to be "on" for anyone you might meet. How would the candidate know that the colleague walking by wasn't the CEO?

I've mentioned this before: I do admissions tours for my sons' private school. We docents don't usually get involved in the admissions process beyond that, but there have been occasions where I've spoken to the admissions director about a family. Sometimes very positively but sometimes because the family was out-and-out rude (cell phone use, mostly or just extreme disinterest.) The families don't know whether we have any input or not, but it behooves them to be on their best behavior with us, not just with their interviewers. (As an aside, we do encourage them to ask candid questions, which we won't relate to the admissions office, and we're very clear about that.)

Logged

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

Yeah - you're not just "on stage" from the moment you walk into the interview room - you could be lucky enough to be "on stage" even before you walk into the building.

I've heard more than one story about someone cutting off another car in traffic only to find out that that was the person they were interviewing with...or being snippy to the person manning the reception desk only to have the owner stand up when the real receptionist came back from picking up something (or the bathroom).

Saw this story the other day - http://notalwaysright.com/had-it-up-to-their-neck-with-bad-customers/36642 - I spent years in small West Texas towns with some similar interactions between families who'd been in the are for three generations...even though this one was in Norway...the bad customer stopped to run an errand on the way to a job interview & blew his chance by picking on the employee at the gas station where he stopped to get a new cylinder of gas (not sure what kind - around here it would be for an outdoor cooker or possibly a recreation vehicle with a gas stove in it). But he had to be "right" instead of "polite" and it did NOT work out the way he'd expected...

I had to terminate a man with 16 years with the company this morning due to an inappropriate relationship between him and a female employee he supervised. Even worse, both employees are married. It wasn't just the inappropriate relationship, he lied repeatedly when we started investigating. She eventually admitted it, but even knowing that, he continued to lie and say there wasn't anything going on. He finally admitted it when confronted with pages and pages of emails between them that left absolutely nothing to the imagination. Emails that they sent on company computers on company time. The female employee had told me that he thought he had a way to permantly delete the emails. He was wrong.

Back in the late 90's, our church at the time was looking for new ministers. We needed both a senior and an associate pastor, since both had left. We hired a clergy couple who were looking for new opportunities. Why exactly they were looking became very clear about 5 years later.

In February of that year, the wife announced that she was accepting an associate pastorship at a church in Texas. We all wondered what the husband would do, and about a month later he announced that he was going to retire. They set their last work Sundays for that May. The church organized a huge banquet to thank them for their service, with many gifts and heartfelt displays of appreciation.

About 2 weeks after their last Sundays, my husband ran into a friend who went to a different church in our same denomination. As it turns out, this friend had just served on a trial board for the senior pastor, at which his preaching credentials were revoked. To use an old term, he was defrocked.

And just what ecclesiastical crime had he commited? Well, let's say that the church frowns on ministers marrying people and talking to them about being faithful and upholding wedding vows when you start an affair with a married member of your congregation. Then refuse to break it off, and just move on with your wife (who knows about your affairs) to a new church. Do this a few times and eventually you'll run into a husband of your new lover who won't just let it drop if you choose to move on to a new church.

Umm...defrocking should be the least of HIS worries. His wife is a pastor, too? And she's forgiving him when he's showing no remorse and no change of heart (or at least a change of behavior)?

Dad was a preacher - I do tend to hold clergy to a higher standard, as they need to be presenting a GOOD example to their flocks...not a bad example.

++++

Reading about the business clothing issues - I'm so glad that my first few jobs involved a uniform (fast food or a smock at a store) or even a choice of uniforms (military - depending on weather and activity of the day). By the time I was doing a job where I was responsible for how I dressed (substitute teacher, insurance adjuster, or volunteer at a thrift shop) I had a handle on wearing "classic" clothing instead of trendy clothing (MIL was helping subsidize my wardrobe as a substitute teacher - as this was during the last "recession" in the 1980s - by giving me things that she "didn't like" or that "no longer fit" - they were pretty much classic skirts & tops or sweaters for cooler weather - kind of a "preppy" look).

Told me we need widget1 NOW NOW NOW! ASAP! I told him he could probably have it first thing tomorrow morning since I have a clear schedule to do it now, which would give it to him still a good week ahead of schedule. He then told me in response to that fast turn around option that actually the client doesn't need it for another two week and the client "isn't getting it a day sooner". Um, so why the insistence on the rush in the first place?

Then he finished his 10 minutes of indecision by throwing a curse-filled temper tantrum in front of senior person about a totally unrelated issue, that he caused himself by not listening to coworker telling him not to start the widget2 painting machine before they'd done a sample check to make sure the alignment was fine. Instead he started the entire production run, realised it was wrong and promptly threw the entire batch on the floor and accused the coworker and senior person of messing with him (I'm politely paraphrasing his actual words).

<head desk>

I'm not sure what's worse, his passive agression, his indecision or his temper.

Logged

It's best to love your family as you would a Siberian Tiger - from a distance, preferably separated by bars . -- Pearls Before Swine (16-May-2009)

Back in the late 90's, our church at the time was looking for new ministers. We needed both a senior and an associate pastor, since both had left. We hired a clergy couple who were looking for new opportunities. Why exactly they were looking became very clear about 5 years later.

In February of that year, the wife announced that she was accepting an associate pastorship at a church in Texas. We all wondered what the husband would do, and about a month later he announced that he was going to retire. They set their last work Sundays for that May. The church organized a huge banquet to thank them for their service, with many gifts and heartfelt displays of appreciation.

About 2 weeks after their last Sundays, my husband ran into a friend who went to a different church in our same denomination. As it turns out, this friend had just served on a trial board for the senior pastor, at which his preaching credentials were revoked. To use an old term, he was defrocked.

And just what ecclesiastical crime had he commited? Well, let's say that the church frowns on ministers marrying people and talking to them about being faithful and upholding wedding vows when you start an affair with a married member of your congregation. Then refuse to break it off, and just move on with your wife (who knows about your affairs) to a new church. Do this a few times and eventually you'll run into a husband of your new lover who won't just let it drop if you choose to move on to a new church.

Umm...defrocking should be the least of HIS worries. His wife is a pastor, too? And she's forgiving him when he's showing no remorse and no change of heart (or at least a change of behavior)?

Dad was a preacher - I do tend to hold clergy to a higher standard, as they need to be presenting a GOOD example to their flocks...not a bad example.

Yep, his wife was well aware of his multiple affairs, and for some reason unknown to anyone else, continued to stay married to him and serve as a pastor with him. What I've heard is that this last affair was the final straw, although it took a few years before she divorced him.

And in the "it's too bizarre to be something you just made up" : Husband pastor's new lover was the woman who organized a 3 day conference featuring a nationally known speaker. The conference was focusing on marriage and how to strengthen it. Wife pastor oversaw a new program called "8 Great Dates to Improve Your Marriage" that went of for a number or years.

Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.

It makes me think of an article I read a few years ago about how Interviewers would take a potential employee (clearly far along in the hiring process) to a nice restaurant and observe how the potential hire treated the hostess and wait staff. The article had to do with situational ethics and an Interviewer that conducted business this way felt fairly confident in dodging a few bullets that were perfect in every way - except for how they treated people they viewed as 'beneath them'.

My guess is that even a potential hire that might treat an AA with deference may have a worldview that restaurant staff are beneath the need to treat kindly and not think anything of mistreating restaurant staff in front of an interviewer - sort of like thinking 'everyone looks down on them' so being harsh with them would not be a big deal.

The Interviewer commenting for the article said something along the lines that a potential hire that acted like this would be someone who is obsequious to someone higher up and nice enough to an equal but difficult to those subordinate.

Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.

It makes me think of an article I read a few years ago about how Interviewers would take a potential employee (clearly far along in the hiring process) to a nice restaurant and observe how the potential hire treated the hostess and wait staff. The article had to do with situational ethics and an Interviewer that conducted business this way felt fairly confident in dodging a few bullets that were perfect in every way - except for how they treated people they viewed as 'beneath them'.

My guess is that even a potential hire that might treat an AA with deference may have a worldview that restaurant staff are beneath the need to treat kindly and not think anything of mistreating restaurant staff in front of an interviewer - sort of like thinking 'everyone looks down on them' so being harsh with them would not be a big deal.

The Interviewer commenting for the article said something along the lines that a potential hire that acted like this would be someone who is obsequious to someone higher up and nice enough to an equal but difficult to those subordinate.

In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it. In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.

It makes me think of an article I read a few years ago about how Interviewers would take a potential employee (clearly far along in the hiring process) to a nice restaurant and observe how the potential hire treated the hostess and wait staff. The article had to do with situational ethics and an Interviewer that conducted business this way felt fairly confident in dodging a few bullets that were perfect in every way - except for how they treated people they viewed as 'beneath them'.

My guess is that even a potential hire that might treat an AA with deference may have a worldview that restaurant staff are beneath the need to treat kindly and not think anything of mistreating restaurant staff in front of an interviewer - sort of like thinking 'everyone looks down on them' so being harsh with them would not be a big deal.

The Interviewer commenting for the article said something along the lines that a potential hire that acted like this would be someone who is obsequious to someone higher up and nice enough to an equal but difficult to those subordinate.

In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it. In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

And their table manners - if someone is going to be entertaining clients - can they handle the utensils and a conversation without a disaster...if there is a disaster, now do they handle THAT? There are so many things that you can learn about someone in a restaurant!

Whenever my bosses have done interviews in our office, our administrative assistant greets them, gets them seated in the waiting area and brings them in when the bosses are ready to see them.

There has been more than one candidate that didn't get the job in part because of the way they treated the AA.

It makes me think of an article I read a few years ago about how Interviewers would take a potential employee (clearly far along in the hiring process) to a nice restaurant and observe how the potential hire treated the hostess and wait staff. The article had to do with situational ethics and an Interviewer that conducted business this way felt fairly confident in dodging a few bullets that were perfect in every way - except for how they treated people they viewed as 'beneath them'.

My guess is that even a potential hire that might treat an AA with deference may have a worldview that restaurant staff are beneath the need to treat kindly and not think anything of mistreating restaurant staff in front of an interviewer - sort of like thinking 'everyone looks down on them' so being harsh with them would not be a big deal.

The Interviewer commenting for the article said something along the lines that a potential hire that acted like this would be someone who is obsequious to someone higher up and nice enough to an equal but difficult to those subordinate.

In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it. In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

And their table manners - if someone is going to be entertaining clients - can they handle the utensils and a conversation without a disaster...if there is a disaster, now do they handle THAT? There are so many things that you can learn about someone in a restaurant!

In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it. In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

This part seems a bit off to me - I think that someone seasoning their food before tasting it would say to me that they a nervous about the job interview, not necessarily anything more. Or possibly that they have learned from experience that they like their food hotter / saltier than average so always need extra pepper or salt in restaurants!

I'm sure that there are lot s of things one could pick up on in a restaurant setting which might not come over in a more conventional interview, but that particular one seems a bit of a stretch to me!